>> Sight-- oh, I see. If they don\'t get a positive, we don\'t have a problem.
?? Not at all. We currently test for many, many drugs.
If trainers - especially \"the ones\" on your list that you are convinced are cheating via their performance compared to their brethen - are not coming up positive to the many we currently test for (including EPO) that leaves only the unapproved, the unknown, the designer, the special (using cobra venom as a nerve block instead of a -caine drug that tests, for example).
Yes, we have to continue to pursue developing tests for those unknowns asap. Those drugs are out there. One things trainers have proven is that they are not all smart, and some of these morons are willing to put anything into a horse.
I think testing of current winners should be expanded and more regular and thorough (not shotgunned as it is currently in some jurisdictions)
>> You know, we could stop testing altogether, and by your logic completely eliminate the whole issue.
Nonsense. That\'s not what I think at all, and I\'ve never implied it in the least.
>> I\'ve been trying to figure out what the hell your position is.
I\'ve stated my position clearly on this board several times before: I\'m against use of any illegal drug in the racehorse, and all the drugs we use now (for example, the legal steroids, bute, etc.) should be testable and controlled so there is no possible raceday performance influence.
Here\'s where I differ from many on this board, and nearly all lay people: I do not think \"drugs - to use or not\" is the black or white issue many do. Probably because I know what different drugs actually do to a horse.
I realize, from experience, that many of the things some people worry about (Winstrol, some dietary milkshaking, lasix hiding other drugs, etc) really do not do much of anything to affect performance. Certainly no where near what the general public fears.
For example, \"steroids\" as used by Barry Bonds is no where near, by any stretch of pharmacologic reality, Dick Dutrow giving a shot of Winstrol once a month.
But do I think the legal steroids should be given to horses automatically once a month? Hell, no. Do I think Dutrow is giving his horses an advantage over the guy who doesn\'t do that? Not really, unless he\'s using massive off-label doses, or doing that instead of giving a horse some spacing.
It\'s not black and white. These are elite athletes, running on the edge of their physiology and metabolism, and they won\'t run very well on hay, oats, water and turnout.
Should they run on steroids? Hell no. Should they run on lasix? Yes, but I wouldn\'t get upset with no. Should they run on nerve blocks? Absolutely not. Should they run with recently injected joints? No. Should they run with a small amount of bute in their system (too small to do anything about pain, enough to stop inflammation) Yes (but again, if it\'s no, no big deal)
Should we allow the use of steroids, nerve blocks, injecting joints, bute? Yes. Of course. Elite athletes need drugs to keep them healthy - you can\'t deny them drugs that medically help them be racehorses, to deal with what we ask them to do. Just not where it would influence race day.
